Appeal No. 2000-0023
Application 08/967,856
OPINION
Appellants have failed to argue with any reasonable
degree of specificity the patentability of any dependent
claim. Further, on page 3 of their brief, appellants state
that "The rejected claims (i.e., claims 4-6 and 8-9) stand or
fall together." Therefore, we shall decide this appeal based
on the patentability of independent claim 4. The
patentability of all the claims stands or falls with
independent claim 4 on which they depend. In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re
Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705, 709, 231 USPQ 640, 642 (Fed. Cir.
1986); 37 C.F.R. § 1.192 (c)(7), first sentence.
There is no dispute between the examiner and appellants
concerning the disclosure of Brouwer. Brouwer discloses the
compounds used by appellants in their claimed method for
"preserving wood." There is also no dispute that Brouwer
discloses that the compounds therein disclosed are useful
anti-fungals having a broad spectrum of activity against a
variety of fungi, including Phytophthora (column 3, lines 35
through 42).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007